본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울서부지방법원 2017.11.01 2016가단33533

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment on the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendant can be found to have prepared and delivered to the plaintiff the loan certificate stating that ① interest of 30,000,000 won on October 20, 206 shall be 12% per annum; ② the loan certificate stating that the repayment shall be due on November 30, 2016 (hereinafter "first loan certificate"); ② the amount of KRW 20,000,000 as of November 28, 206 shall be determined and borrowed as of December 20, 2016 (hereinafter "second loan certificate"), and the amount of KRW 20,000 per annum from the following day to December 20, 2016 shall be 20,0000 per annum 50,0000,000 per annum, which shall be 16% per annum from the day after the above loan was delivered to the plaintiff; and the remaining amount of KRW 30,000,000,00,000 per annum.

2. On the summary of the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant asserts that the five-year statute of limitations has expired since each of the instant loans constitutes a commercial obligation. (2) Claims arising from both parties to the relevant legal doctrine as well as claims arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity, as well as claims arising from an act that constitutes only one of the parties, fall under the five-year statute of limitations under Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also ancillary commercial activity performed by merchants for their business.

And the act of borrowing business funds should be considered as the nature of the act itself.